Posted
by
timothyon Thursday August 25, 2011 @06:31PM
from the slow-and-steady dept.

An anonymous reader writes "After years of focusing on further improving KDE4, two weeks ago the developers of the free desktop announced the next big step for their project: KDE Frameworks 5.0. But as long-time developer — and Plasma team leader — Aaron Seigo points out in an interview with derStandard.at/web, the source-incompatible changes shall be held to a minimum. He also calls Frameworks 5.0 only the 'first step;' new Applications and Workspace releases are to follow later. Seigo goes on to talk about their chances in the mobile market with Plasma Active and further areas of collaboration with the other big free desktop: GNOME."

Aaron spend a lot of time speaking about a transition, in the long-term, to QML (I had to look it up) in the interview. He mentioned that it makes prototyping interfaces quicker, and I assume that also means implementation of the GUI aspects would therefore be quicker also. But I am confused. Is QML just for GUI stuff, or do you write the entire application using it? What other advantages over C++ does it offer?Cheers

QML is pretty much like HTML/CSS+Javascript, except that you can do more Javascript magic to manipulate the UI. In theory the whole application can be written in Javascript, but I'd say normally just for the UI or things closely related to the UI. Personally I consider it a step backwards, to me it's more like trying to use web app tech to build a "real" app. I always thought that the only reason you'd want to use a declarative UI is because you need to send it as one big HTTP page, rather than set one and one property as you can do locally. To me at least the whole system seems way less intuitive. With an imperative system I always call setWidth() to set the width, in a declarative UI it's set in the declaration one way and I have to change that property some other way. Maybe I'm wrong but IMO it's throwing away the best part Qt has.

Thanks. That's what had me confused. To me if you're programming in C++ anyway, I would have thought you'd do the UI in C++ also (especially considering Qt is C++ [with the moc]). I get that using QML may make the UI design easier for designers, but I couldn't see any other real advantages. Anyway, I thought he was saying the whole application would be written in QML, so thanks for clearing that up.

I think one of the points of QML is that it can access Qt objects even ones written in C++ (and vice versa). This means QML can be used to script firefox-style plugins and extensions into any Qt application.

You're saying like as if writing Qt5 app in C++ will no longer be possible.

Possible yes, but you can tell they're now pushing QML as "the next big thing" and the traditional QWidgets aren't getting nearly as much love as before. The rest of Qt will of course be there but without all the UI building blocks I'd say Qt is gutted. So you can of course be an old fart and use the widgets anyway, but I fear it'll become more of a legacy option. While I don't think Nokia is going to depreciate them, the priority of bugs and enhancements vs QML is a concern.

"You're saying like as if writing Qt5 app in C++ will no longer be possible."

well.. that's the thing, the qt folk have been pushing it as if it weren't. as the only thing on their pr agenda, heavily. somehow still a clean, simple c++ solution and qml solution side by side seems to have everything more in one place in the c++ version. qt's c++ (and helper classes etc) are the best out there, so it's a shame. not to mention following program flow from code.

With QML you can do "width: parent.width / 2", or whatever other expression, and the width is now bound (not assigned) to the width of the parent. IMO is waaaay better than defining a width, and having to create a bunch of logic to make sure the width stays the amount you wanted in the first place. For user interfaces is a great thing, and other technologies are already doing it (Clutter, JavaFX). I think that the way that works in Qt is pretty good, because you integrate with imperative code in a very conv

You misunderstand how QML is supposed to be used. It's nothing at all like building a web app. Its biggest problem right now is that there aren't any good books about how to use it correctly, and what your overall design philosophy should be.

If we are to stay with the web analogy, in terms of usefulness QML/C++ is to plain C++ like CSS/HTML is to plain HTML. Positioning, reacting to changes, tasteful animations etc. are all extremely simple in a declarative UI. Explaining how to use it would be too much for one post, but it's becoming so powerful you'll soon be able to manipulate your UI using shaders. I've added comments to explain the basic QML, but the original article is here [nokia.com].

You misunderstand how QML is supposed to be used. It's nothing at all like building a web app. Its biggest problem right now is that there aren't any good books about how to use it correctly

Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Sorry if I'm being rude, but I don't see anything in your post that couldn't be better solved with a QShaderEffectItem instead of the ridiculous QML UI. I get it, it appeals to all the people who know HTML/CSS/JavaScript. It still sucks to everyone who knows C++/Qt, no matter how much you polish the turd.

You misunderstand how QML is supposed to be used. It's nothing at all like building a web app. Its biggest problem right now is that there aren't any good books about how to use it correctly

Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Sorry if I'm being rude, but I don't see anything in your post that couldn't be better solved with a QShaderEffectItem instead of the ridiculous QML UI. I get it, it appeals to all the people who know HTML/CSS/JavaScript. It still sucks to everyone who knows C++/Qt, no matter how much you polish the turd.

A "no true scotsman" fallacy? No, it's like saying one doesn't like a saw when felling trees, but prefers axes, then being pointed out that hey, with a saw, you don't hit the tree, you move the saw back and forth... (Note: I'm not here implying anything about superiority of either a saw or an axe.)

Also, feel free to do the example with C++, then compare the amount of code needed. Then multiply that by the number of screens/views/windows of an application.

QML is just for GUI stuff, but you can add logic to the interface in JavaScript. Some people are claiming that Qt is losing its C++ roots, but, IMHO, they are wrong. QML will replace the UI files that Qt Designer created, but with lots of advantages. First, QML can be written by hand, and also with a very smart QML Designer that only modifies the lines that you change. That means that designers and coders can easily work together, and that changes to the UI are readable in the history of the project.

Apart from sample gadget apps I have yet to see the appeal. I haven't seen a single native looking QML app for PC yet, the controls for doing so aren't even done yet, so how are they supposed to replace UI files?

Of course they are not done, because Qt 5.0 is not yet done. During Qt 4.x QML was an invention mainly for smartphones. QML for desktop apps won't happen before Qt 5.0.

Apart from sample gadget apps I have yet to see the appeal. I haven't seen a single native looking QML app for PC yet, the controls for doing so aren't even done yet, so how are they supposed to replace UI files? Also Nokia has clearly stated that C++ interfaces to the new features in QML are not a priority so it is pretty obvious that Qt is indeed loosing its C++ roots. With ui files you could do everything they did by hand. QML won't allow that anytime sone (possibly never if you read the nokia blogs).

Also we will have a larger focus on quality, we are now requiring unit testing for changes to our core libraries.

About damned time. Maybe the Nepomuk file indexer will stop crashing every time I start a large compile. I turn it on every point release to see if it has gotten any better. I let it go for a few days before I become fed up with its constant disk access... the damned thing never stops, ever. I'm not sure what it does really... it pisses me off that Dolphin uses it for its search. If you w

I'm really started to get burnt out on all the new versions for "mature" packages. There are multiple examples of this: MS-Windows, Firefox, KDE, even the Linux kernel (which recently rev'd major numbers just because). All of these things and others are mature; they do what they basically need to do and new major versions haven't really add anything all that useful lately. I'm tired of getting new GUIs, frameworks, etc just because the developers need to be seen as doing something. Stop it! How about fixing

KDE? GNOME? I could not care less. I have been using fvwm for something like 20 years now and it still does everything I need. If you want to get work done, the GUI must under no circumstances get in your way. It must not hog your attention. It must not waste screen area. At the same time, it must provide what you need. I need 3x3 virtual desktops, edge-scroll, autoraiser, one icon box to the right, a clock and some mouse-menus. fvwm does this fast, efficient and in these 20 years I had to

I need 3x3 virtual desktops, edge-scroll, autoraiser, one icon box to the right, a clock and some mouse-menus.

The point is that KDE is not only a window manager like FVWM. Though I don't think FVWM allows me to put a button on the title bar that makes the window "always on top". There also is a number of applications (ok, you can run them in FVWM too, but why?) and there is also lot of other useful stuff such as kioslaves, notifications,...

I have not looked at this as I don't need it, but I would be very much surprised if fvwm did not have that functionality.

The reason for running the occasional KDE application in fvwm is pretty simple: An application has no business being tied to a window manager and choosing your window manager not by what works best for you, but by what applications it comes with is just completely backwards and decreases efficiency. Kind of like using Windows because you want IE. And why use fvwm? Simple: It is a far bett

I don't update every version, usually just every other release. However, because the developers keep working on new major versions that don't really give us anything truly useful, that means that the existing code never has obvious bugs fixed.

There's a lot of problems with that approach. On servers, it makes sense, because if your MySQL server is working fine, then why bother updating it except for security fixes?

A desktop computer is a different matter. There's always bugs to be fixed with all the various applications you use. Maybe the printing is a little screwed up, maybe the music player has some UI problems. Also, features are added, which can be useful: maybe the music player added support for a new online store like Magnatune. Final

I'm a sysadmin, so I usually have millions of windows open at once, and I've always been looking for ways to find the bloody one I'm after. I'm often in the middle of programming something when something urgent comes up, and I'm too lazy to switch to a new desktop so I just fire up a few more windows, then I always put my computer in standby every night (to keep my code open and remind myself what I was doing the following morning) until about twice a

I personally like Gnome3 and Unity. I like them both. I also really like Gnome2. On my laptop I have Ubuntu 10.10 with Gnome2 and my desktop with Gnome3 and Unity.
Let me give you an example as to why I like Unity specifically. My girlfriend uses my desktop when I'm at work as I "inherited" her laptop for work purposes. I told her about Linux, Unity, Ubuntu, etc. etc. All she said to me was "does it work?" I said yes. I told her about the Unity Home launcher thing, where she can move the mouse to t

omfg. you just type "firefox" and somebody plays a viola ? or do you magically get flowers ?that sounds very awesome, wondering what kind of nanotechnology assembly is used there. do you need new hardware ?

She can type in Firefox and VIOLA there it is, no clicking on menus or anything. To further this, she needed to scan something and, according to her, she typed in "scanner" and VIOLA XSane opened up and she could scan whateverthehell it was she needed.

You're not alone. I switched the moment GNOME 3 came out for Debian, even in it's incomplete status. I cannot stomach all the Nepomuk crap, the widgets here and there, Dolphin being a bloated pig, etc. The only apps I'm down to using are Kile and Kate. The Plasma crap I could live without.

I love the increased screen real estate for applications and I love the ease with which I can find and switch to windows on other virtual desktops. I typically work with eight virtual desktops, each one having multiple windows open. Gnome 3 lets me easily (and beautifully!) fly from one window to another across my different virtual desktops.

I love that all of my windows render faster. Compared to Gnome 2, Gnome 3 flies and every frame is picture perfect. No flickering. No tearing. I u

I'm a KDE guy but I find GNOME Shell to be the second best thing after Plasma Desktop. I really can't stand GNOME 2.x and all the other DEs that still cling to 1990s conventions two decades later. If I wanted a Windows 95 GUI, I'd just use Windows 95.I prefer KPD's "everything is a widget" approach because I like high configurability but GS's completely new workspace approach is great, too.

I actually use gnome 3 at work (for millions of windows management) and KDE4 at home, namely because I'm a demoscener in my part time, and I think kdevelop 4 is the most innovative IDE I have ever used. The syntactic highlighting and code generation tools are genius.

I've used KDE since the beginning, but used ion3 for many years (long after he abandoned development). I'm currently using kwin with very custom rules, but I dabbled in, and really should look at i3 again. It's capable of being easily configured exactly like my ion3 configuration, only with a much cleaner codebase.

Seriously. The software gets heavier and heavier with each release and productivity software more often than not is just a KDE interface over some set of utilities or a port from GTK+ and vice versa. KOffice will never strike a chord beyond the 1% crowd. Same goes with Amarok and many others. How about working with corporations to port a flag ship CAD/CAM or FEA, solid modeling solution to KDE?

WTF? If you design something with cross-desktop in mind, or even just a shared KDE-GNOME technology, it is much more likely that your work will be well engineered and will stand the test of time, even if you end up being the only one using it.

That's utter bullshit. Good software arises from doing one thing, and only one thing, well. That's a cornerstone of the UNIX philosophy.

Supporting multiple desktops is the antithesis of that philosophy. All you end up doing is offering a shitty, compromised "solution" for everybody, rather than an optimal solution for a smaller number of users.

I think you meant "supporting multiple computing devices" or something like that, because having multiple virtual desktops is something most KDE users seem to appreciate.

Anyway, I disagree. KDE is more than just a UI, it's a lot of back-end systems as well; a subsystem for video/audio, a network manager, etc. Google for "KDE netbook"; KDE has another mode that's optimized for netbooks with their tiny screens, and it looks very different from regular KDE. Someone over there seems to realize that different computing devices need different UIs, and they've designed KDE to be able to change based on the device. There's no reason you can't have the same DE on different devices, but obviously it needs to be "skinned" differently: with a traditional interface for desktops with dual 30" screens, keyboards, and mice, and a totally different interface for tablets, and another interface for netbooks, etc. There's no reason these can't be combined into one DE, instead of forcing users to have a single interface that looks the same on all devices.

This is nothing new, and has always been part of KDE philosophy, and the same goes for GNOME. With KDE, the key was always configurability: you like window decorations that look like MacOS? You can choose that. You want the panel on the side or top or bottom, or ever two panels? You can choose that too. In GNOME, it's always been the opposite: we tell you what your desktop's going to look like because we know what's best for you, and you better like it. Gnome has long been removing configuration options because they're "too confusing".

So now that tablets and touchscreens are du jour, the Gnome fools think that we all need a UI that's, as you put it, a shitty, compromised solution for everybody, so that people don't get confused, whereas the KDE folks think that different devices can have different UIs, and that their users are smart enough to be able to adapt.

This is nothing new, and has always been part of KDE philosophy, and the same goes for GNOME. With KDE, the key was always configurability: you like window decorations that look like MacOS? You can choose that. You want the panel on the side or top or bottom, or ever two panels? You can choose that too.

Not that I disagree with you regarding philosophy, but it's interesting to note that those two examples you bring up here were both possible with GNOME until the latest release. GNOME 2 was about removing stu

Good software arises from doing one thing, and only one thing, well. That's a cornerstone of the UNIX philosophy.

Supporting multiple desktops is the antithesis of that philosophy.

Quite the opposite is the case. Your only hope to work well on several desktops is to use that principle. Because otherwise your stuff will be so deeply entrenched into one desktop that it simply won't work well on the other one.

That's silly - there's plenty of work that is non-specific to any of the desktops, under the freedesktop moniker. The KDE and Gnome people are working on a wallet that works under both, but that also means it could work under XFCE and WindowMaker, etc.

Meanwhile, by not doing it all themselves (e.g. PAM integration) they have more resources to spend on KDE-specific stuff. This is a non-zero-sum game.

I'm glad to hear that, because 4.0 truly sent me to Gnome. I don't really like Gnome, but the first few KDE 4 releases were almost unusable for me.

How often do we have to repeat that 4.0 and 4.1 were not meant for end users and that the 3.5.10 release (which happened AFTER 4.1) is proof of that?4.2 was for end users. Granted, there were a few glitches in 4.2.0 but after 4.2.1 the Plasma Desktop ride was nothing but pleasant for me.

Agreed,4.5 was the first usable4.6 the first that felt stableI think the changes to OpenGL make 4.7 really stable and smooth, even with crazy effects. I still miss the windows bursting into flames from Compiz though (there was something really satisfying about that, and when fast enough it wasn't distracting.

Eh. Recent releases are better, but I still don't like the direction KDE's gone with the user interface with 4.x; I care neither for Plasmoids (or whatever those things are) nor for the way the K-menu hides the item hierarchies.

It's a little bit silly to complain about KDE's user interface when the things you complain about are user-configurable. Configurability has always been the hallmark of KDE; if you don't like the way it comes by default, there's probably a setting to change it under System Settings->Workspace Appearance and Behavior.

As the other posters said, there's actually three different modes for the K-menu: classic (which is probably what you want), the new one, and Lancelot. If you don't like the one set by default, try another one.

This isn't GNOME, where you're stuck with whatever the "usability experts" there think you should use, and aren't allowed to change anything. You can have it your way (with apologies to BK).

Plus, no one's forcing you to put plasmoids on your desktop. You can leave it totally blank if you want.

How much more obvious can they make it, other than putting into the control panel (called "System Settings" in KDE, but the same thing)? What else should they do, stick a giant button on the menu itself that says "configure menu"? Who wants to see that every single time they open the menu? If they did that on every UI element, the whole desktop would be filled with configuration buttons for every little item. That's why it's all put in the control panel (or should be; KDE4 falls down a little in this ar

You sound like a complete moron. You complain that KDE isn't set up exactly the way you want it, as if they're somehow supposed to be able to read your puny little mind, and then when someone shows you how to change it to be exactly the way you want it, you complain more that "it's too hard!!!" Maybe you should go buy a Mac if you're that stupid, or maybe you shouldn't even be using a computer at all.

You are what people complain about when they say how needlessly hostile $OPEN_SOURCE_PROJECT's fora are; you're more interested in being right than you are about solving someone's problem, and out here in the real world that's pathetic.

My wife was a huge KDE 3.5 fan. She now uses KDE 4.6 and is liking it very much. That is an accomplishment. Here requirements were 1) A translucent kicker, 2) A classic menu 3) A classic desktop 4) A wallpaper rotator. KDE 4.2 and onward deliver.

Or try the Lancelot Launcher [fomentgroup.org]. I think it's in the kdeplasma-addons package in Kubuntu, not sure about other distributions, but it should be something like that. I actually use that pretty exclusively these days. I just really like it. It does not hide the item hierarchies like the normal K-Menu. Plus it's got small little things like the no-click interface that are kinda cool, and which I do use occasionally. It's at least worth checking out.

Honestly, (and if this gets me modded down, i have the karma to burn), I find the Win7 paradigm to be about the most functional and useable one. I miss the self-sorting menus (where software sticks itself in the right place), and I cant mod the heck out of it with Compiz, but out of the box it has VERY nice keyboard shortcuts, an uncluttered "active window" space, and the menu search is excellent.

Thats not to say im in love with Windows, but the new GUI (excepting their hiding of various control panel appl

Well, KDE has hidden a ton of stuff just as deeply as Windows 7 did.But, otherwise I agree, Win 7 is quite good.I actually prefer KDE 4.7 to Windows 7, even though I spend most of my day on Windows 7. Something about having multiple desktops, allowing you to leave one a cluttered mess of windows while you use a fresh one to handle some interruption.

I even ran into a tablet (Atom processor HP Slate) running windows 7 and it was eminently usable, in spite of all the ranting you read all over the web about win

I never was really able to use more than 2 desktops on Gnome/KDE; I ended up forgetting I had the apps open, and would reopen eg firefox, and it just ended up getting in the way. Possibly I just need a Compiz / Linux GUI Guru to set me up, but nothing has really fit quite as nice as the new startbar in 7.

I run KDE mainly because it's the only thing that supports my triple monitor setup. But it's also really wel done. It allows for stuff like a vertical taskbar that works well (Unity's is horrible, Gnome forces it to be wide and have text instead of just icons, KDE does it right, and supports the 'pin to taskbar' thing that windows does) - this is something that took me a while to get used to, but really is worth it. With widescreen monitors, vertical space is at a premium. I used to run the linux-

As long as KDE doesn't do that, it'll be OK. But they sorta hint, from TFA:

"Doesn't that also mean, that the traditional desktop is losing importance?
Aaron Seigo: It's losing importance in the sense that newspapers have lost importance."

If KDE wants something for tablets, they should pick a certain version of their DE that they deem provides the minimal functionality that a tablet needs, and fork it from there. That way, the tablet side of things can meet its own requirements, w/o touching the desktop.

Gnome 3 should be renamed something else for tablets altogether, and be a tablet only DE. Stop pushing it on the desktop, and in the process, making the thing look more ridiculous. Even Gnome 2 was unsatisfactory with respect to what on

If KDE wants something for tablets, they should pick a certain version of their DE that they deem provides the minimal functionality that a tablet needs, and fork it from there. That way, the tablet side of things can meet its own requirements, w/o touching the desktop.

Your way increases the workload by 100% which is insane for a community project with very limited resources. KDE's approach is so much better because it does not need any forks.

No, they suck because they're both relatively new desktops with documented missing functionality and they both have a lot of work to do before they can be considered mature. Unity is designed for Netbooks and a lot of its problems stem from that e.g. the massive icons, the global menu and launcher anchored to the left work really badly large screens. Gnome 3 has piles of missing functionality (e.g. desktop icons which have to be manually reenabled), and the activities launcher is annoying for living offscre

And I assume you're basing all this wonderful market research on yourself or a small group of like-minded friends? They sold 9.25 million iPads last quarter - for comparison they sold 3.95 million Macs. It's as much a fad as the iPhone, maybe you haven't found a use for it but the market has. The problem with Gnome and KDE chasing after the tablet market is that they think they'll be a "player" along with iOS and Android. If anything I think they have less chances of succeeding there on the desktop, they're ignoring the 1% desktop market share they have and chasing 1% of the mobile market. They haven't got the resources to run in two directions with two different teams, so they'll go halfway up both roads.

The problem with Gnome and KDE chasing after the tablet market is that they think they'll be a "player" along with iOS and Android. If anything I think they have less chances of succeeding there on the desktop, they're ignoring the 1% desktop market share they have and chasing 1% of the mobile market. They haven't got the resources to run in two directions with two different teams, so they'll go halfway up both roads.

Regardless of what Siego may have said, I don't see KDE chasing after the tablet market, si

I hope they can at least get the geek market. I know, so many of us are already just about married to either iOS or Android but come on... think about it. What's better, two versions of the same api, one for desktop and one for mobile devices making it VERY EASY TO PORT the same app to both platforms or the current paradigm?... Virtually no effort applied towards coding a mobile app is useful on the desktop or vice versa.

And yes... KDE IS trying to go after the mobile market (tablets AND phones). KDE

Wasn't Meego already targeted @ the tablet market, granted non-KDE, but w/ the Qt tools & everything? When neither Nokia nor Intel could make it popular on tablets, how can KDE pull that off?

You're wrong. There so far there isn't an official MeeGo release for tablets. Intel and Nokia are still working on that which is why MeeGo couldn't have been a tablet success so far. (The WeTab uses a proprietary tablet GUI.)

The problem with Gnome and KDE chasing after the tablet market is that they think they'll be a "player" along with iOS and Android. If anything I think they have less chances of succeeding there on the desktop, they're ignoring the 1% desktop market share they have and chasing 1% of the mobile market. They haven't got the resources to run in two directions with two different teams, so they'll go halfway up both roads.

The problem is that you and the people who voted you as Informative didn't even read the interview.Unlike iOS OSX there is no porting required to get workspace elements to work on different form factors. Apple developed two closely related code bases whereas KDE develops a single code base that works everywhere. With Plasma Active the KDE devs create a framework that's so flexible that one only needs to write a simple shell in QML and all existing QML widgets will just work. Plasma Desktop widgets usually

I don't own an E-book reader. I do read e-books on my laptops, in fact I have an old IBM Thinkpad R32 that has 'only' 512 Meg RAM and if it wasn't for comparatively lightweight OS's like Kubuntu all it could probably still do is e-books. I may well switch to a tablet PC, but I would much prefer to go through the comparatively minor hassle of making that old Thinkpad run XFCE in a really lightweight distro like Puppy Linux if Kubuntu gets to big for the old laptop, long before I would buy any of the proprie

1. Big. Bigger than a netbook. As big as a laptop.2. Hard to write seriously on.3. Much more expensive than ebook readers.

I summary, I agree with you and GP: KDE needs to ignore tablets.

I have no idea what tablet you are looking at, but the ones I've seen are much smaller than most netbooks, handle standard bluetooth keyboards and mice, and the price is dropping all the time.

Ebook reading is just about the last activity that comes to mind with them.They are the couch computer, the commuting computer, the brain trust, the portable desk, the shop floor, the shipping dock, and the GIS computer, as well as the doctors exam room computer. No they are not going away. Oh, and the funny rodent t

Um, not exactly. I can see how you might be confused, since the hardware is largely the same, though not exactly. There's two giant differences:1) the tablet isn't a phone. You can't talk on it. While some of them do have 3G radios, I don't know if any of them actually allow talking on them, or if they only do data over the 3G radio. Even if you could talk on them, it'd be a little clunky, since you'd need a headset. When was the last time you saw someone holding a 10" tablet up to their head?2) the sc

1) Any of the current line of tablets will run CSipSimple [google.com], with which they instantly become a phone. Add the ubiquitous bluetooth headset and you don't even have to take the tablet out of your briefcase or back pack to answer it. My tablet has a phone number, and I pay exactly ZERO dollars for that service. No boot loader hacking involved. Install and run. Somewhere I had a How To [google.com] on this, now slightly dated.

Who still carries a briefcase? I've spent the last few years trying to reduce the number of things I carry. I got a keyless car system in my latest car so I stick the thing in my pocket and forget about it. I walk out of work with my sunglasses on and nothing in my hands. I don't wear a coat all year, so what do I do with the thing in the summer months?

Conceded on #1, but I'm sorry, a briefcase doesn't equal a pocket, and neither does a purse or coat pocket. For one thing, I'm quite sure none of the coats I wear have pockets big enough to fit a 7" screen. Maybe big overcoats do, I dunno, but I never wear those. And coat-wearing is rather rare for me anyway since I live in Phoenix. And since I'm a man, I don't have a purse; as this is Slashdot, I imagine 99.9% of the other readers here are in the same boat as me on that point. As for briefcases, since

It's not a black-and-white distinction, just like these days there's no longer a b&w distinction between cars and SUVs, with all these mini-SUVs and "crossovers" out there, to make an obligatory car analogy. But the existence of a Nissan Rogue or Honda Accord Crosstour does not suddenly make Suburbans and Tahoes equal to Lotuses. It just gives you some options in the middle.

However, I firmly object to the idea of a 7" tablet being "pocketable". I don't know what kind of jacket you wear, but no jacket

KDE would do quite well if they ignore this tablet fad. In a couple of years, when everybody has forgotten about tablets, KDE will be a far better desktop environment than it currently is.

Actually, I disagree somewhat. KDE actually doesn't have only one UI, it has at least two. There's a netbook version of it, which I believe (haven't tried it myself) on the newest KDE versions you can switch to pretty easily. As you might expect, it's designed for netbooks with small screens, and looks very different fr

Wouldn't the Netbook UI look pretty much identical to their desktop, just like Windows does? Or do they change things quite a bit?

Netbook screens are too small to show all the detail and small icons that a full-size desktop screen can. Here's [linuxbsdos.com] a review of the latest Fedora with KDE, showing some screenshots of the netbook UI (on page 3 [linuxbsdos.com]). Of course, these shots aren't quite right because it looks like they took them on a standard desktop screen instead a real netbook (or least a simulation of one), but you'

That is the genius of KDE. Here is a gross over generalization. The plasma engine runs in the background, Then there are a few "containers". Each container has rules about how plasmoids can be arranged and provide a few menu/configuration options. Then everything else is a plasmoid. For all intent and purposes consider each plasmoid a resizeable canvas using SGV and truetype fonts.

So a menu, it is plasmoid. Tasklist, it is a plasmoid. Clock, yup, it is a plasmoid as well. Throw them into any container and

Gnome was a big desktop when KDE screwed up with the great KDE4.0 debacle about 3 years ago. Tons of KDE users got pissed off (mainly because 3.5 was no longer supported by the distros, and 4.[0-4] were broken and buggy), and defected to Gnome2, and have been using it ever since.

As for Gnome3, they just released that, what?, this month? This you're talking about it like it's ancient history.

I'm not sure printing is the bailiwick of KDE.There has been some problematic regression in CUPS of late and that may be the source of your problems.

Its critical that the the "source-incompatible" changes be held to virtually ZERO, because KDE can't stand anotherdebacle like the release of KDE 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 only to have it finally become reasonably usable by 4.4.

The new KDE framework is all the work of the current team, they should have no problem supporting a few dual methods to handle current code in